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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
      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 2 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
        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 3 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
          >
          > 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 4 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
            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 5 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
              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 6 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                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 7 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                  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 8 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                    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 9 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                      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 10 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
                        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.