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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Feb 9, 2006
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 13 , Feb 10, 2006
              View Source
              • 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.