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

Re: Matson Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: An open appeal to FT supporters

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    Wayne Meeks liked to tell his students that an historian should wake up every morning and say ten times while looking in the mirror, I do not know . . . I do
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Wayne Meeks liked to tell his students that an historian should wake up
      every morning and say ten times while looking in the mirror, "I do not know
      . . . I do not know . . . I do not know . . ."

      I think that's a useful, indeed indispensable phrase to employ in
      discussing the literary origins of Matthaean and Lucan *Sondergut*, as well
      as the bulk of Mark. Our evidence allows us to assert with confidence a
      prior history for those items of the Gospel tradition paralleled in the
      Pauline epistles (and perhaps even to attribute some of these to Cephas,
      depending in part on the meaning of ἱστορῆσαι in Gal 1:18). We can
      recognize pericopes that have a preponderance of vocabulary, imagery, etc.,
      characteristic of an Evangelist and conclude that here we have redactional
      contributions to the Gospel, but we can't rule out the possibility that an
      Evangelist recalled hearing a story about Jesus and related it in his own
      words. (I find myself doing this with jokes and humorous anecdotes, which
      seem to me among the closest analogues in our culture to the dynamics of
      oral Gospel traditioning.)

      Sanders and Goodacre are entirely reasonable in holding that sources lie
      behind the pericopes of the Gospel tradition where we cannot identify a
      literary source through comparison (i.e., everything outside the Double and
      Triple Tradition, and scriptural quotations in the rest of the material).
      But about the precise extent and nature of those sources, it seems to me
      the only sound judgment is, "We do not know . . . we do not know . . . we
      do not know . . ."

      Jeff Peterson
      Austin Graduate School of Theology
      Austin, Texas


      On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > At 10:45 AM 2/17/2012, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
      > >I'll bite as an opener to this, Ron.
      > >
      > >I would agree with Goodacre and Sanders that the biggest problem
      > >that Goulder has is his insistance that Luke basically only knows
      > >Mk/Mt + LXX. So he then has Luke engaged in very creative exegesis
      > >to arrive at some passages. To me, at least, the obvious solution
      > >is along the way (for both Matthew and Luke), there were additional
      > >material available.
      >
      > Mark,
      > Thanks for your well-stated summary. I feel more at home with your
      > summary than with most others I have read about.
      >
      > The way I see it, we're dealing not only with sources, but with
      > theories of composition. On one side, the position is that we only have
      > * written compositions (our gospels + Q), and
      > * authorial creations
      > I might call this the literature school: If it wasn't written, it was
      > made up. This POV supported by Occam's Razor.
      >
      > The other position holds that we have
      > * Written compositions that we currently have (our Gospels)
      > * Written compositions that we only have in reconstructed form
      > (e.g. Q, L, M)
      > * Written compositions that have been lost, but survive in
      > paraphrased form in our Gospels
      > * Oral compositions in non-standardized form (including
      > eye-witness reports), bits and pieces of which survive in our gospels.
      > I might call this the multiple source school.
      > We know from the Rashomon Effect that eyewitnesses to the same event
      > may differ in confusing ways.
      > We also know from the Q project that "the same" event or saying may
      > include everything from precise literal agreement in all aspects
      > (e.g., between Luke and Matthew), to agreement in most things, but
      > differing in minor ways that are deemed not significant.
      > We also know that the oldest literary sources in our possession are
      > generations removed from what is deemed to be the date of the
      > original composition.
      > We also know that while there is substantial agreement among our
      > sources, significant differences remain (e.g., the ending of Mark),
      > and that textual analysis can identify different families of
      > manuscripts by paying close attention to the ways in which one group
      > of texts differs from another, even if these differences seem minor.
      > This is the reason why most scholarly texts of the Bible include
      > footnotes explaining differences in the source material, verse by verse.
      >
      > I tend to lean towards the multiple source school, but have not been
      > able to find my way through the thicket of the "We know that"
      > statements, as well as the other issues.
      >
      > Bob Schacht
      > Northern Arizona University
      >
      > >What attracts me to FT is that it explains the Q material as being
      > >essentially Matthean material that has been absorbed and
      > >reworked. Thus the FT is "simple" in that does not require a
      > >hypothetical common document Q to explain the common material.
      > >
      > >But to say that does not rule out other material that was floating
      > >around in the early church. It certainly appears to me, for
      > >instance, that some of the unique parables in Luke arise from
      > >pre-Lukan christian material (e.g., Good Samaritan, or Lazarus
      > >parable). Call it a source, call it oral material. The problem,
      > >though, is pinpointing this material: was it written down, or
      > >oral? How much freedom did Luke use in revising this
      > >material? Here we get into more speculation. And that is part of
      > >the reason for my resistance to Q as its used now-- it is
      > >speculation. On the other hand I have Matthew. And if Luke simply
      > >used Matthew, within what I think are recognizable Lukan
      > >compositional and editorial practices, then I think I can explain
      > >most of the Q material -- both its placement and its final form.
      > >
      > >In the same way, I am confident that Matthew had access to material
      > >in addition to Mark -- I don't think he just made it all up, nor
      > >that he was an eyewitness. In some ways this Matthean material
      > >might be called Q. And I would be fine with that, as long as we
      > >don't suppose that (a) Q had to be written, or (b) that Matthew and
      > >Luke had to independently use this material in their
      > >construction. So sure, I see Matthew using a source or sources that
      > >make up much of what we might call Q material in Matthew.
      > >
      > >But the problem with our request for a diagram or chart is precisely
      > >the problem with Q studies... it is the attempt to nail down all
      > >these unknowable materials into some catalog. I know what's in
      > >Matthew. I know what's in Luke. I can explain much of the common
      > >material based on reasonable compositional strategies. What I don't
      > >know for sure is the sources behind them, just like I am not as
      > >confident that we can define the contours of Mark's sources.... How
      > >much was Mark's own compositional strategy, and how much was oral
      > >tradition. And was this tradition disconnected bits of material
      > >that Mark strung together (ala Schmidt), or was it perhaps already
      > >in some narrative pattern?
      > >
      > >well, fire away.
      > >
      > >Mark A. Matson
      > >Milligan College
      > >http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
      > >________________________________________
      > >From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > >Of Ronald Price [ron-price@...]
      > >Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:46 AM
      > >To: Synoptic-L
      > >Subject: [Synoptic-L] An open appeal to FT supporters
      > >
      > >In "The Case against Q", p.13, n.53, Mark Goodacre makes a revealing
      > >comment. E.P.Sanders had accepted Goulder's presentation of the FT with
      > one
      > >"substantial modification", namely that the sayings material had
      > "sources".
      > >Mark G. adds: "This modified version of Goulder's thesis is essentially
      > the
      > >one that will be argued in this book".
      > >
      > >Unfortunately the book does not contain a diagram of the resulting
      > synoptic
      > >theory. Are you still happy with the much-vaunted simplicity of the usual
      > FT
      > >diagram? You should not be if you are with Goodacre rather than Goulder.
      > For
      > >in the usual FT diagram the substantial modification is nowhere to be
      > seen.
      > >Would you please come clean and produce an updated diagram (and while
      > you're
      > >at it, unless I've missed something, publish a list of the common Mt/Lk
      > >pericopes of which the Lukan version is supposed to have derived from, or
      > >been influenced by, a non-synoptic source).
      > >
      > >For comparison, appropriate diagrams as well as full details are available
      > >for both the 2ST and the 3ST.
      > >
      > >Ron Price,
      > >
      > >Derbyshire, UK
      > >
      > >http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_news.html
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------------------
      > >
      > >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >------------------------------------
      > >
      > >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.