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

Re: [XTalk] Again on Michael Goulder

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Thanks for mentioning the sad death of Michael Goulder here, Bruce. It is indeed surprising that it had not been mentioned on Synoptic-L or Xtalk and I
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 20, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for mentioning the sad death of Michael Goulder here, Bruce. It is
      indeed surprising that it had not been mentioned on Synoptic-L or Xtalk and
      I suppose it is an indication of just how far the centre of gravity for such
      things has moved to the blogs.

      I have gathered materials relating to Michael on my blog at
      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Goulder, including The
      Times obituary, the address at his memorial service and so on.

      With best wishes
      Mark
      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Mark, Thanks for the reference, and perhaps especially the pictures. It all helps. One correction, though: Michael s memoir Five Stones has been published, and
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 20, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark,

        Thanks for the reference, and perhaps especially the pictures. It all
        helps. One correction, though: Michael's memoir Five Stones has been
        published, and is available through the usual channels.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • Mark Goodacre
        Thanks, Bruce. Yes, the memoir came out last September; it may be that you missed the date stamp on that post. All best, Mark ... -- Mark Goodacre Duke
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 21, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Bruce. Yes, the memoir came out last September; it may be
          that you missed the date stamp on that post. All best, Mark

          On 20 July 2010 23:18, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
          > Mark,
          >
          > Thanks for the reference, and perhaps especially the pictures. It all helps.
          > One correction, though: Michael's memoir Five Stones has been published, and
          > is available through the usual channels.
          >
          > Bruce
          >
          > E Bruce Brooks
          > Warring States Project
          > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          >
          >



          --
          Mark Goodacre
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Crosstalk Cc: Synoptic, GPG, WSW On: Auch Kleine Dinge: In Memoriam Michael Goulder Date: 25 July 2010 Time: A little past midnight From: Bruce In my
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 24, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Crosstalk
            Cc: Synoptic, GPG, WSW
            On: Auch Kleine Dinge: In Memoriam Michael Goulder
            Date: 25 July 2010
            Time: A little past midnight
            From: Bruce

            In my latitude, 25 July has just begun; formerly St Christopher's Day,
            now the day appointed for the recollection of the person and notable
            achievements of Michael Goulder, at one time Rector of St
            Christopher's, Withington.

            What form of recollection would be most suitable, for a scholarly
            discoverer of the first magnitude? As I have elsewhere said of the
            Sinologist George Kennedy, perhaps the most suitable way to honor a
            discoverer is to keep on discovering. I would thus take this memorial
            day as a time for reminding ourselves of our obligation to improve and
            extend, and not merely to appreciate, what has been given to us by
            previous scholarly achievement.

            This does not mean writing another five books on the Psalms, or
            another two volumes on Luke, to match Michael in shelf inches. The
            point is not to match, but to continue, and for most of us, unsituated
            as we are for continuous scholarly investigation, the continuity must
            necessarily be in small modules. But the small modules should do more
            than talk to themselves. How then shall they get into the continuing
            stream of scholarly discourse?

            One traditional method is not the book, but the chapter: the small
            contribution bundled with others to make a larger contribution. The
            academic Festschrift is a not wholly functional example of this mode.
            I have before me an interesting variation. It is W K Lowther Clarke's
            book New Testament Problems (Macmillan 1929), written before 7 July
            1937 and thus while philology was still more or less alive. It was
            dedicated to Clarke's teacher Foakes-Jackson, in lieu of the 70th
            birthday Festschrift which never happened. Clarke himself had no time
            to be a scholar; as he says in his dedicatory epistle, by getting him
            an editorial position in the field, "You prevented me from writing the
            theological books I had planned." Clarke was the Editorial Secretary
            of SPCK, a reviewer of other people's stuff, reading, as he says,
            about 1000 books a year, and with no time to do anything but distil
            his impressions of them and pass selected impressions on to the
            qualified general reader. His book is a further selection of those
            impressions, developed as topical essays originally printed in such
            church magazines as Church Quarterly Review, Expository Times, and
            Review of the Churches. There are 23 essays in 217 pages, or about 9
            pages each. They show him acting on what he has read, not merely
            taking it in. They show a commendable balance of mind and concision of
            style. I recommend them.

            Still more do I recommend this medium: the short piece shown to others
            as a contribution to the general flow of collective knowledge of the
            subject. Books these days run to the hundreds of pages, and they
            increasingly retail in the hundreds of dollars. That is a path of
            self-extinction, and I need say no more of it, save that the typical
            book is also overdeveloped to the point of self-refutation, in its
            push (while the author is typically in his twenties, and green behind
            the ears) to be "definitive." The shorter note, by contrast, is more
            often content to be suggestive; to leave something for others to
            develop. The attempt (of which the tragic figure of Einstein should be
            a sufficiently minatory example) to finish the work, to do more than,
            under present conditions of knowledge, can be well done, is to spoil
            the work.

            The journal is maybe a little better. True, articles in journals (such
            is the page-count pressure of the obsolete yet persistent tenure
            system) tend to be ever longer: monographs in all but binding. The day
            when a half-page note was regularly seen in the Journal of the
            American Oriental Society is long gone. But there are other journals
            (the one I am currently launching has a median length of 4 pages, and
            we routinely refuse articles which reach the lower threshold of
            alternate journals, namely 20 pages). And the tendency to gigantism
            and to gigantistic pricing can also be resisted by societies or other
            journal proprietors who decline to sell out to Cambridge and Company,
            simply by declining. Forbearance is among the cardinal scholarly
            virtues; the seed and mother of the other virtues. I recommend that too.

            A more recent possibility is the electronic forum. These die more
            rapidly than journals, they silt up with nonlookers, they turn trivial
            or fall silent. But again, in the nature of things, this need not be
            the case. It is merely (it seems to me) that the art of managing such
            a conversation is still in its infancy, whereas the editorship of
            paper media has a more developed tradition of procedure to rely on. We
            might thus withhold a judgement of perdition on the attempts, so far,
            to get something of the sort going on the airwaves.

            As I have elsewhere observed of the Warring States (classical Chinese)
            texts, things like this need institutional continuity in order to
            survive and maintain ongoing vitality. They can't be too individual or
            too circumstantial; or if they start so, they need to be able to
            outgrow themselves and get onto a longer track. They need to enter,
            and then to survive, their adolescence.

            Probably no focus of intellectual exchange has ever been more
            productive, per pint consumed, than the coffeehouses of London, in
            which the Royal Society would continue its meetings, and the merchants
            would get together to balance risks, and Richard Steele would edit the
            Guardian, and the gamblers would summon de Moivre from his chess game
            to calculate odds for them, thus creating (together with the work of
            Bernoulli in Switzerland) the science of statistics.

            So another thing we could perhaps use in the current century is a
            counterpart to Slaughter's Coffee House. At what commercial but
            welcoming venue could the heirs and assigns of Goulder conveniently
            meet, this afternoon, to exchange individual observations and develop
            collective hypotheses?

            Papa Gino, anyone?

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Ron Price
            Michael Goulder s sense of humour made him one of the most interesting lecturers I ve ever come across. His generosity extended to trying, over an extended
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 26, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael Goulder's sense of humour made him one of the most interesting
              lecturers I've ever come across. His generosity extended to trying, over an
              extended period, to advise me with regard to the possible publication of my
              unconventional 'page hypothesis'.

              In the 1990s Birmingham University's Faculty of Arts organized 'Day Schools'
              on biblical/theological topics. They found a winning formula: choose a
              controversial topic, and have Goulder and a more traditional scholar present
              opposing viewpoints. On the two such 'Day Schools' that I attended,
              Michael's presentations were by far the more convincing in my opinion. The
              one I remember best was in 1990 on Mark's Gospel, when his adversary was
              Morna Hooker.

              I was privileged to have a separate discussion session with Goulder at
              Birmingham University. We also corresponded in 1990 and 1996, during which
              time I was honoured to receive four letters from him. My hypothesis was
              dependent on positing certain early interpolations in Mark, John, and the
              Corinthian correspondence. Goulder rejected all such interpolations, but was
              nevertheless prepared to offer his advice on other aspects. All this was
              before I had made appreciable headway in tackling the Synoptic Problem, so I
              never challenged him on this.

              Goulder deserves a high ranking among biblical scholars, especially in my
              view for his Two Missions theory, for his appreciation of the high degree of
              creativity (especially in the parables) in both Matthew and Luke, and above
              all for his convincing demonstration of Luke's familiarity with Matthew's
              Gospel in passages such as Lk 3:7-9; 3:16-17; 4:1-13; 7:1-10; 7:18-35;
              10:21-22; 19:12-27 (for which see his "Luke: A New Paradigm").

              Nevertheless history may yet decide that he was over-impressed by Austin
              Farrer's too simple assessment that all the pericopes of the Double
              Tradition result from Luke's use of Matthew. For Goulder never deduced that
              the multitude of Semitic aphorisms in the Double Tradition clearly indicate
              an origin several decades earlier than Matthew, and probably require a
              written source to explain their transmission to both Matthew and Luke.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition (although Goulder
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 26, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Goulder never deduced that
                > the multitude of Semitic aphorisms in the Double Tradition clearly indicate
                > an origin several decades earlier than Matthew, and probably require a
                > written source to explain their transmission to both Matthew and Luke.
                >
                I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests
                an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition (although Goulder
                did a pretty good job identifying common style in Matthaean redaction of
                Mark, Q, and M, particularly in his JBL articles; Matthew's date, habits,
                and concerns are remarkably similar to Q's).

                But it's hard to see how this could "require" a common source rather than
                direct use of one Evangelist by another; as Sanders and Davies noted, a
                degree of Matthew/Luke agreement close enough to establish independent use
                of a common source positively invites explanation by Luke's direct
                acquaintance with Matthew (or, much less plausibly, vice versa). And that
                holds regardless of the style of the common material and of the source from
                which the earlier Evangelist derived it.

                Jeff Peterson
                Austin Graduate School of Theology
                Austin, Texas


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ron Price
                ... Jeff, So far, so good. ... My contention here is that Goulder s arguments about common style were based primarily on the non-aphoristic passages in Q,
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeff Peterson wrote:

                  > I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests
                  > an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition

                  Jeff,

                  So far, so good.

                  > (although Goulder did a pretty good job identifying common style in Matthaean
                  > redaction of Mark, Q, and M, particularly in his JBL articles; Matthew's date,
                  > habits, and concerns are remarkably similar to Q's).

                  My contention here is that Goulder's arguments about common style were based
                  primarily on the non-aphoristic passages in Q, which passages I deem to have
                  a Matthean origin.

                  > But it's hard to see how this could "require" a common source rather than
                  > direct use of one Evangelist by another; as Sanders and Davies noted, a
                  > degree of Matthew/Luke agreement close enough to establish independent use
                  > of a common source positively invites explanation by Luke's direct
                  > acquaintance with Matthew (or, much less plausibly, vice versa). And that
                  > holds regardless of the style of the common material and of the source from
                  > which the earlier Evangelist derived it.

                  There are three serious problems with this 'invited' explanation. Firstly it
                  assumes we can treat the Double Tradition as a unity when considering the
                  relationship of the Matt/Luke versions of its material. Secondly it requires
                  that in every case Luke's version of a DT pericope is secondary to Matthew's
                  version. Thirdly it assumes that the question of how Matthew acquired the
                  aphorisms is an irrelevance.

                  To deal with the first point first, there is a significant difference in
                  style between the Semitic aphorisms and material such as the Temptation, the
                  Centurion's Servant, the Talents/Pounds and the Lament for Jerusalem. The
                  widespread use of Semitic parallelism in the aphorisms indicates an origin
                  in a Semitic environment several decades before Matthew. The latter material
                  includes indications of sympathy towards the Gentiles, quotations from the
                  Septuagint, a hint that Jerusalem had already fallen, the acceptance of a
                  delay in Jesus' promised return, as well as considerable signs of Matthew's
                  characteristic style.

                  Concerning indications of greater Lukan primitivity, see the paragraph
                  headed "Occasional Lukan Originality" in the Web page below.

                  Thirdly, where did Matthew get the Semitic aphorisms from? Was it from oral
                  tradition or was it from a written source? It is very unlikely that so many
                  authentic-looking aphorisms could have been preserved through several
                  decades of oral tradition spanning the break-up of the Jerusalem Jesus
                  movement and the era of the dominance of an apostle who took little interest
                  in the life or sayings of Jesus. Surely therefore Matthew had a written
                  source containing the aphorisms. Did Luke also use this source? Well there
                  are the mistranslations in Lk 11:41 & 11:48 which show that at least two of
                  the woes were taken not from Matthew but from an Aramaic source. Then of
                  course there's the above-mentioned 'Occasional Lukan Originality'.

                  Confirmation of the written source comes from the historical testimony of
                  Papias, which neatly matches a scenario in which the synoptic authors had to
                  make their own translations of the sayings.

                  Finally there are the hints dropped by Luke.
                  (1) I had already found that the aphorisms seemed to be arranged in pairs
                  when I spotted that Lk 10:1 appears to hint at this. It also hints that
                  there were 72 sayings in all, and my investigations have shown how a highly
                  coherent structure can be formed from 72 sayings.
                  (2) In April 2006 I discovered another hint, this time in Lk 9:28. Here Luke
                  redacts Mark's "six days" to "about eight days". How odd. Now my posited
                  structure has four distinct sections, with each section having two equal
                  halves. We thus have eight half-sections. Luke must have recognized these
                  because certain material Matthew largely keeps together, Luke splits: the
                  mission material (part into Lk 9:57-10:12 and part of the rest into ch.12.),
                  and the judgement material into the woes (ch.11) and the rest (mainly
                  ch.17). Lk 9:28 is placed immediately after he had copied saying C12 (Mk
                  9:1), the opening saying in the sixth of eight subsections. Lastly he added
                  to Mark's version the superfluous "META TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS", arguably
                  confirming that Lk 9:28 referred to the 'logia'.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.