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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... I am not sure whether most scholars have argued that or whether they have built on the assumption that Luke did not know Matthew, in the light of the
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 09/02/06, Gentile, David <gentile_dave@...> wrote:

      > My study suggests that a least a little of Matthew's vocabulary found
      > its way into Luke.
      >
      > http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html
      >
      > Others have also made this same observation in other ways. The problem
      > with this is that for other reasons most scholars have argued that it
      > seems fairly unlikely that Luke actually had a copy of Matthew in front
      > of him as he worked.

      I am not sure whether "most scholars have argued" that or whether they
      have built on the assumption that Luke did not know Matthew, in the
      light of the arguments of Streeter and otehrs. But I would say that
      those arguments need engaging, and are found wanting; e.g. see my own
      attempts to take them on in a book called _The Case Against Q_, which
      was published a couple of years ago.

      > One possibility is that some sayings from Matthew got into independent
      > circulation after Matthew was written, or sayings that were already in
      > circulation picked up some Matthian vocabulary. Luke then could have
      > picked these up. A good example here is the Greek word "Oligopistos",
      > "little faith". Mark never uses this word. But then Matthew uses the
      > word four times. Twice in sections of Mark he revised, and twice in
      > sections of Matthew that have no parallel in Mark.

      See further Goulder's work here, e.g. in the article
      "Self-Contradiction in the IQP", but also elsewhere. Goulder argues
      that the word is Matthew's neologism, not previously found in Greek
      literature. The difficulty for any theory other than direct borrowing
      here is that the pericope in question has remarkably close agreement
      between Matthew and Luke overall, so we are not talking about a word
      here or a phrase there finding its way in.

      > The word Oligopistos only occurs once in the text of Luke/Acts. (Luke
      > 12:28). It has a direct parallel in Matthew 6:30 so in is in "Q". The
      > text also occurs in an early Greek fragment of the non-canonical gospel
      > of Thomas.

      What do you mean by "text"? It is true that there is a parallel to
      this pericope in P.Oxy 655 but the word OLIGOPISTOS is not found.

      > So the saying looks to be something that circulated
      > independently of its context, as both a part of oral tradition, and part
      > of lists of sayings. The fact that Luke has this saying that looks like
      > a free oral unit, and also looks like it used Matthian vocabulary, makes
      > it quite plausible that Luke picked this up from an oral tradition that
      > had been influenced by the publication of Matthew.

      Why not just say that Luke got it out of Matthew?

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

      http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
    • Gentile, David
      Hi Mark, Mark: I am not sure whether most scholars have argued that or whether they have built on the assumption that Luke did not know Matthew, in the light
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Mark,


        Mark: I am not sure whether "most scholars have argued" that or whether
        they
        have built on the assumption that Luke did not know Matthew, in the
        light of the arguments of Streeter and otehrs. But I would say that
        those arguments need engaging, and are found wanting; e.g. see my own
        attempts to take them on in a book called _The Case Against Q_, which
        was published a couple of years ago.

        Dave: How about most scholars (but not all, yourself a notable
        exception) support some version of the 2-source hypothesis?

        Mark: See further Goulder's work here, e.g. in the article
        "Self-Contradiction in the IQP", but also elsewhere. Goulder argues
        that the word is Matthew's neologism, not previously found in Greek
        literature. The difficulty for any theory other than direct borrowing
        here is that the pericope in question has remarkably close agreement
        between Matthew and Luke overall, so we are not talking about a word
        here or a phrase there finding its way in.

        Dave: I agree that one way or another it looks like Matthian influence.
        But if "Q" was a "semi-rigid" oral tradition that could be recited by
        rote, then Matthew getting this from "Q" and Luke getting this from a
        Matthian influenced "Q" seems to work, at least for me. Of course this
        does assume the oral tradition was somewhat rigid and able to hold its
        shape reasonably well, in order to achieve the high verbatim agreement.
        And obviously other forms of Matthian influence are possible too. This
        one just seems like a good potential candidate for oral influence, at
        least to me.

        Mark: What do you mean by "text"? It is true that there is a parallel
        to
        this pericope in P.Oxy 655 but the word OLIGOPISTOS is not found.

        Dave: I thought the word was in the fragment. But, I appear to be
        mistaken there.

        Mark: Why not just say that Luke got it out of Matthew?

        Dave: Possible of course. I think the genealogy and nativity are big
        stumbling blocks for many there. The Ferrier hypothesis is still one
        that is not ruled out by my study, as I interpret it. Still, the study
        does seems to lean towards something intermediate between the 2-source
        and Ferrier hypotheses, and that is where I find myself leaning as well
        based on the study itself and other lines of argument.

        Thanks for the feedback,

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... My sense is that oral traditions sufficiently rigid to achieve the degree of verbatim agreement we see in the synoptics should also evidence the various
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:13 AM 2/9/2006 -0600, Gentile, David wrote:
          >Dave: I agree that one way or another it looks like Matthian influence.
          >But if "Q" was a "semi-rigid" oral tradition that could be recited by
          >rote, then Matthew getting this from "Q" and Luke getting this from a
          >Matthian influenced "Q" seems to work, at least for me. Of course this
          >does assume the oral tradition was somewhat rigid and able to hold its
          >shape reasonably well, in order to achieve the high verbatim agreement.
          >And obviously other forms of Matthian influence are possible too. This
          >one just seems like a good potential candidate for oral influence, at
          >least to me.

          My sense is that oral traditions sufficiently rigid to achieve
          the degree of verbatim agreement we see in the synoptics
          should also evidence the various mnemonic devices as we see
          in Homer or a reverential attitude to the memorized (oral)
          text that would permit little redaction of the material.
          Neither of these indications for a sufficiently rigid oral
          tradition are evident in the synoptics, however.

          Stephen
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
          Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
        • Chuck Jones
          All, I m curious, and have been awhile, about source numbering (2 source, 2 1/2 source, etc). It seems to me that regardless of what one concludes about the
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            All,

            I'm curious, and have been awhile, about source numbering (2 source, 2 1/2 source, etc).

            It seems to me that regardless of what one concludes about the double tradition (Q), there were sources M and L. My reasoning is simply that, except for the birth narratives, the material that is only in Mt and only in Lk follows the same form as the material in multiple sources. For example, form criticism would suggest that Lk incorporated the parable of the lost coin, which appears only in Lk, from a source, just as he and Mt did with the parable of the lost sheep.

            Or asked another way, the appearance of a pericope in only one gospel does not imply free composition, does it?

            Chuck


            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave
            ... Stephen, Maybe if we could recover the actual list of sayings then we would see these features? The list could be quite different than what we think we
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > My sense is that oral traditions sufficiently rigid to achieve
              > the degree of verbatim agreement we see in the synoptics
              > should also evidence the various mnemonic devices as we see
              > in Homer or a reverential attitude to the memorized (oral)
              > text that would permit little redaction of the material.
              > Neither of these indications for a sufficiently rigid oral
              > tradition are evident in the synoptics, however.
              >
              > Stephen
              > --

              Stephen,

              Maybe if we could recover the actual list of sayings then we would
              see these features? The list could be quite different than what we
              think we see. For example, maybe the order of Matthew/Luke does not
              really match up all that well with the list. Or maybe we are missing
              enough pieces to mask a pattern.

              In any case, its probably not a very important point. I don't think
              the influence of oral tradition alone is enough to account for what
              we see of Matthew in Luke. I'm just saying that when we look at an
              individual piece of Luke that looks like it came from Matthew, the
              idea of oral influence is one that we should consider along we the
              other possible avenues of influence.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Steph Fisher On: Scholar From: Bruce STEPH: what constitutes a scholar? BRUCE: a scholar is someone who knows the literature. E
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic-L
                In Response To: Steph Fisher
                On: Scholar
                From: Bruce

                STEPH: what constitutes a scholar?

                BRUCE: a scholar is someone who knows the literature.

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Steph Fisher
                Hello Bruce, I agree that a scholar is someone who knows the literature. It was an unnecessary question but I suggest that nobody has done a count of all
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Bruce,

                  I agree that a scholar is someone who knows the literature. It was an
                  unnecessary "question" but I suggest that nobody has done a count of all
                  those knowledgeable of the literature, therefore, I don't think we can
                  appeal to any consensus regarding some version of a Two Source Hypothesis.

                  Steph Fisher
                  NZ

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "E Bruce Brooks" <ebbrooks@...>
                  To: "Steph Fisher" <steph7@...>; <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:32 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis


                  > To: Synoptic-L
                  > In Response To: Steph Fisher
                  > On: Scholar
                  > From: Bruce
                  >
                  > STEPH: what constitutes a scholar?
                  >
                  > BRUCE: a scholar is someone who knows the literature.
                  >
                  > E Bruce Brooks
                  > Warring States Project
                  > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                  > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 8/02/2006
                  >
                  >
                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... I mean rather : a scholar is someon who uses the right methods for the production of knowledge. Knowing the literature is only a little piece, I hope. And
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    E Bruce Brooks wrote:

                    >
                    > STEPH: what constitutes a scholar?
                    >
                    > BRUCE: a scholar is someone who knows the literature.


                    I mean rather :
                    a scholar is someon who uses the right methods for the production of
                    knowledge.
                    Knowing the literature is only a little piece, I hope.

                    And then : who defines the literature ? who defines the right methods ?
                    ;-)

                    a+
                    manu
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    ... Nobody answered. Perhabs the existence of M and L is accepted by the whole Mark-priorist community ? In that case, only debated sources are counted ;-) a+
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Chuck Jones wrote :

                      > All,
                      >
                      > I'm curious, and have been awhile, about source numbering (2 source,
                      > 2 1/2 source, etc).
                      >
                      > It seems to me that regardless of what one concludes about the
                      > double tradition (Q), there were sources M and L. My reasoning is
                      > simply that, except for the birth narratives, the material that is
                      > only in Mt and only in Lk follows the same form as the material in
                      > multiple sources. For example, form criticism would suggest that Lk
                      > incorporated the parable of the lost coin, which appears only in Lk,
                      > from a source, just as he and Mt did with the parable of the lost sheep.
                      >
                      > Or asked another way, the appearance of a pericope in only one
                      > gospel does not imply free composition, does it?
                      >

                      Nobody answered. Perhabs the existence of M and L is accepted by the
                      whole Mark-priorist community ?
                      In that case, only debated sources are counted ;-)

                      a+
                      manu
                    • Steph Fisher
                      Hello Ron, Yes I know it s an odd one - a combination of two brilliant but different scholars. Mark Goodacre concedes the existence of oral sources. Maurice
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Ron,

                        Yes I know it's an odd one - a combination of two brilliant but different
                        scholars. Mark Goodacre concedes the existence of oral sources. Maurice
                        Casey pp. 186-90 sums up his proposed models. But I'm working on it.

                        Best wishes,
                        Steph Fisher
                        Napier NZ

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                        To: "Synoptic-L elist" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:51 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis


                        > Steph Fisher wrote:
                        >
                        >> I am especially influenced by the work of both Mark
                        >> Goodacre and Maurice Casey ("An Aramaic Approach to Q")
                        >
                        > Steph,
                        >
                        > That's an interesting combination.
                        >
                        > How would you even begin to reconcile Mark Goodacre's rejection of Q with
                        > Maurice Casey's preference for no less than five "Q"s? (Such a model is
                        > proposed in the book of Casey's which you mentioned, though I don't have
                        > the
                        > page number.)
                        >
                        > Ron Price
                        >
                        > Derbyshire, UK
                        >
                        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                        > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                        > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 8/02/2006
                        >
                        >
                      • Steph Fisher
                        Dear Bruce, Absolutely: A consensus, as you suggest, can be appealed to in argument by those so inclined. How good an argument it makes is a separate question.
                        Message 11 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Bruce,

                          Absolutely: A consensus, as you suggest, can be appealed to in argument by
                          those so inclined. How good an argument it makes is a separate question.

                          And I appreciate and agree with what you say:

                          A scholar is one who knows the literature, and is capable of weighing the
                          arguments in the literature on their merits. Anyone with a theory is
                          ultimately hoping to persuade the scholarly constituency that their
                          arguments are sound. And if so, we can arrive at a definition of this list:
                          it is a microconstituency.

                          Best wishes,
                          Steph Fisher
                          Napier NZ


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "E Bruce Brooks" <ebbrooks@...>
                          To: "Steph Fisher" <steph7@...>
                          Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:29 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis


                          > To: Synoptic
                          > In Response To: Steph Fisher
                          > On: Consensus
                          > From: Bruce
                          >
                          > STEPH: I suggest that nobody has done a count of all those knowledgeable
                          > of
                          > the literature, therefore, I don't think we can appeal to any consensus
                          > regarding some version of a Two Source Hypothesis.
                          >
                          > BRUCE: I would still disagree. Consensus isn't normally determined by an
                          > actual count (what about the highly literate guy up there in Baffin Bay,
                          > with his moose traps and his complete file of Revue Biblique? And anyway,
                          > who has the budget?). It's determined by a sense of those who. I don't
                          > think
                          > it's anything much to appeal to, one way or the other. There was a time
                          > when
                          > the entire field thought that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were literarily
                          > independent, hence the phrase "Triple Tradition," and very few people
                          > would
                          > now accept that. So an opinion is only as good as it is. But it still
                          > exists, and I think that very few knowledgeable persons at the present (I
                          > will nominate the four owners of the Synoptic list as my sample) would
                          > feel
                          > any doubt about what its main outlines are, such as they are. If it
                          > exists,
                          > then it can be appealed to in argument by those so inclined. How good an
                          > argument it makes is a separate question.
                          >
                          > I will now make a statement: "Very many scholars at present accept Markan
                          > Priority, whereas very few are persuaded by arguments for Lukan Priority."
                          > I
                          > haven't taken a poll, or seen the results of one, but I don't expect that
                          > my
                          > previously defined Reference Four will feel otherwise. Then the statement
                          > is
                          > correct. That doesn't mean that the opinion it describes is true, just
                          > that
                          > the opinion has been correctly reported.
                          >
                          > The value of knowledgeable opinion, I should imagine, lies in the
                          > presumption that knowledgeable opinion is reached by weighing evidence, so
                          > that if a given argument has failed to convince, it has failed because the
                          > evidence is insufficient. If nobody now believes in "Triple Tradition" in
                          > the sense of three independent witnesses, it is ultimately because the
                          > arguments for literary interrelationship are strong. In a field coinciding
                          > with an area of belief, like NT, there are obvious possible complications.
                          > But it is expected that "scholars" will precisely "bracket off" their
                          > identity as believers when wearing their philological hats. And that, I
                          > suspect, is also part of what we mean by "scholar," and what this list
                          > means
                          > by calling itself a scholarly discussion. It means that appeals to
                          > evidence
                          > are relevant, and that appeals to dogma are not.
                          >
                          > So I end up by revising my definition: A scholar is one who knows the
                          > literature, and is capable of weighing the arguments in the literature on
                          > their merits. Anyone with a theory is ultimately hoping to persuade the
                          > scholarly constituency that their arguments are sound. And if so, we can
                          > arrive at a definition of this list: it is a microconstituency.
                          >
                          > Thanks for the opportunity to reconsider.
                          >
                          > Bruce
                          >
                          > E Bruce Brooks
                          > Warring States Project
                          > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                          > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                          > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 8/02/2006
                          >
                        • Lee Edgar Tyler
                          ... I certainly agree that the Synoptics don t evince transmission through oral tradition; the only way I can see to account for the verbal correspondences is
                          Message 12 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                            >At 11:13 AM 2/9/2006 -0600, Gentile, David wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >>Dave: I agree that one way or another it looks like Matthian influence.
                            >>But if "Q" was a "semi-rigid" oral tradition that could be recited by
                            >>rote, then Matthew getting this from "Q" and Luke getting this from a
                            >>Matthian influenced "Q" seems to work, at least for me. Of course this
                            >>does assume the oral tradition was somewhat rigid and able to hold its
                            >>shape reasonably well, in order to achieve the high verbatim agreement.
                            >>And obviously other forms of Matthian influence are possible too. This
                            >>one just seems like a good potential candidate for oral influence, at
                            >>least to me.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >My sense is that oral traditions sufficiently rigid to achieve
                            >the degree of verbatim agreement we see in the synoptics
                            >should also evidence the various mnemonic devices as we see
                            >in Homer or a reverential attitude to the memorized (oral)
                            >text that would permit little redaction of the material.
                            >Neither of these indications for a sufficiently rigid oral
                            >tradition are evident in the synoptics, however.
                            >
                            >Stephen
                            >
                            >
                            I certainly agree that the Synoptics don't evince transmission through
                            oral tradition; the only way I can see to account for the verbal
                            correspondences is through some sort of textual dependence. But there
                            are two caveats: First, we should not look for the sorts of mnemonic
                            devices seen in Homer or other oral epics because these devices inhere
                            in the verse form of the genre. And of course the gospels are not
                            composed in Homeric decasyllable with cesurae at the fourth foot.
                            Unless you have that verse form, you cannot have Homeric mnemonics.
                            Also, there are evident in many of the aphoristic sayings attributed to
                            Jesus mnemonic structures associated with oral tradition. Such forms as
                            "Give unto Ceasar...", "Man was not made for the Sabbath...", or the
                            anaphoric Beatitudes are suggestive or oral composition and
                            transmission. These do not by any means account for the verbatim
                            correspondences we find in the gospels, but probably do account for the
                            preservation of the sayings up to the point where the textual tradition
                            takes over from the oral, as they are both memorable and easily
                            memorizable.

                            Ed Tyler
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.