Re: [Synoptic-L] FGH Notes 1-4
- [Sorry, by mistake this did go only to Ron. Wrong button. In case anyone
felt puzzled by the lacuna in thread, here is the original. / Bruce]
----- Original Message -----
In Response To: Ron Price
No real difference here. My working definition of the FGH was:
1. No Q
2. No other conjectural texts
3. Mk > Mt >> Lk
4. Unique matter in Mt and Lk is referred to authorial invention.
For which Ron proposed to substitute:
(1) The material common to Mark and Matthew can best be explained by AMatt
making use of a written copy of Mark.
(2) The material common to Mark and Luke can best be explained by ALuke
making use of a written copy of Mark.
(3) The double tradition material is best explained by ALuke making use of a
written copy of Matthew.
These three items are what my #3 was intended to symbolize (I retained the
symbolism from an earlier posting on all possible Synoptic theories). That
is, as against, eg
Mk > Mt > Lk (Mk used by Mt, and Mt in turn used by Lk)
I suggested, again in symbolic terms,
Mk > Mt >> Lk (Mk used by Mt, and BOTH used by Lk).
Denial of Q is merely implied. But the denial of Q was Farrer's point of
departure, and the absence of all other sources is explicit in Goulder. No
less an authority than Goulder's student, our own MkG, finds the Q bit in
particular sufficiently important to the NT world, as a point of contention,
as to deserve separate attention. Call my points #1-2 and #4 luxury
notation., and I will agree, but I was trying to make the map show the
psychology as well as the schematics.
As for focusing on the Mk > Mt relation as the real key to the matter, as
Mark Matson separately suggests, I certainly have no objection. I would
agree that getting that cleaned up definitively would greatly simplify any
remaining questions. I would be glad to join in any such discussion, and I
would be even gladder to sit by watching it succeed without any input or
effort on my part.
My other suggestion was merely tactical. It has nothing to do with the logic
of the situation, but rather with its rhetoric. Given limited resources, why
not try to convince people who are more or less ready to be convinced,
especially when they have so conveniently spelled out the few points at
which they are not yet convinced? If nobody likes Udo Schnelle as a specimen
of near-convincement, what's wrong with Davies-Sanders? That useful book
essentially declared for FGH, but it also identified some areas of
unconvincement. Wouldn't it help the cause if those areas of almost
convincement were systematically addressed? If I were in the market with a
theory, I would be very glad of the chance to enlist a well known and widely
respected senior figure on that theory's behalf. But the opportunity so far
seems to have been passed up.
Not my cause, and so not my concern. But as a more or less sympathetic
bystander, I will admit to being puzzled.
I was reading the other day William Bulger's memoirs ("While the Music
Lasts," Houghton Mifflin 1996). Bill was the Massachusetts Senate President
for a number of years; once a powerful figure in state politics. Bill is
Irish. He knows, more or less by birth, how politics works. He tells a
number of stories from experience that are a salutary shock for the
unpolitical academically minded person, such as myself. We tend to think
that the truth will make its own way, right? The politicians know that it
doesn't, and they know what to do about it. Who are the twelve leading
figures in NT today? Which of them are closest to accepting the FGH
position? What would it take to convince them fully? Work on that area of
near agreement. That's the approach. Treat it as though you had only a few
hours to accomplish it (Bulger op cit, 240f).
Whether this kind of thinking would get anywhere I don't know. At minimum,
the FGH might well emerge from the resulting examining of its own roots and
implications notably clarified and perhaps strengthened. Perhaps also
changed in the process, as I earlier ventured to suggest.
(My personal view, earlier expounded, is that the Synoptic Problem is not
valid as currently stated, so that no solution to the problem, as stated,
including FGH, can be adequate either. My interest in FGH is that it looks
to me like the best lemma, the best intermediate position, the best
jumping-off point from which to reach what I suspect will prove the right
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- For many scholars, the synoptic problem is not an end,
but a means to an end: understanding the historical
Jesus. I can see how these two issues are related on
the Q side, where Q has been important for accessing
the teachings of Jesus, but what about the Farrer-side
of the issue. Aside from E. P. Sanders, perhaps, I
can't think of any detailed approaches to the HJ from
the Farrer perspective. Am I missing any one? What
would it look like?
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481