Re: [Synoptic-L] The Achilles heel of the Farrer Theory?
- On 2 August 2012 05:05, Ronald Price <ron-price@...> wrote:
> Apart from this, and the fact that a saying's oral tradition by its veryRight -- what you say here, Ron, does draw attention to the whole
> nature leaves no evidence to support its existence (and therefore the oral
> tradition of your first paragraph is no better attested than the
> much-derided Q),
problem with oral traditions, that they are lost except in so far as
they are crystallized in the texts that have survived. That places us
in a tough situation and different scholars react to the situation
differently. My own response is to acknowledge the reality that there
must have been what Farrer called the living stream of oral tradition,
but at the same time to engage in analysis of the texts we have.
However much we might wish we could do contemporary-style oral
history, I think it's best to acknowledge that short of stealing a
TARDIS, we are never going to have our own direct access to those oral
traditions. I wish it were otherwise.
> Mark Goodacre has never (as far as I know) acknowledgedThanks for the mention. It may because I am writing in the small
> that by introducing oral tradition as an additional source/sources, his
> claims for the superior simplicity of the Farrer Theory are no longer
hours, but I don't recall having made the claim you attribute to me
here about "the superior simplicity" of the Farrer theory. I do
appeal to Occam's Razor because I think that the Synoptic Problem is
effectively solved without reference to a hypothetical additional
literary work, but I realize that not everyone agrees with me on this
> Indeed the oft-reproduced diagram of the FT is clearly misleading if oraletc.
> tradition plays such a significant part in the synoptic explanation.
If your point is that all diagrams have a tendency to simplify the
models that themselves are simplifications of the reality that they
are attempting to describe, I would be inclined to agree. I don't
think that advocates of the Farrer Theory have a monopoly on that one,
though I do have an natural bias, of course, to observations that make
the Farrer Theory look special. :)
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
- Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
> How do you know for certain that 1 Cor 1:22 is an allusion to Mt 12:39Jeffrey,
> // Mt 16:4 c.f. Mk 8:12? After all, as we see in Josephus, "Jews"
> /did/ seek "signs". So Paul may be making a statement about his
> co-religionists that is based upon his experience/knowledge of them
> rather than upon anything Jesus said, just as his statement about what
> Greeks seek is based upon his experience of Greek culture and not
> anything Jesus said.
I don't know for certain.
But there are two arguments that indicate a *probable* link.
The first involves the immediate context. 1 Cor 1:21-22 includes 'SOFIAS
..... KHRUGMATOS ..... IOUDAIOI SHMEIA AITOUSIN .....',
with which we can compare the logia saying C5 (c.f. Q 11:29-32):
'... H GENEA AUTH ... SHMEION ZHTEI ..... SOFIAN ..... KHRUGMA .....'
Thus we have Jews (implicit in the original context of "this generation")
requesting signs, and we have wisdom and preaching, all three together in
both Paul and the logia.
The second involves the wider context of 1 Cor chs. 1-4. This contains a
cluster of apparent allusions to the logia.
In addition to 1:21-22 there is 1:26-29 in which Paul wrote "consider your
call" followed by the threefold repetition of "not many" and "God chose"
(c.f. the logia saying C2, Mt 22:14).
Then 1 Cor 2:4 refers to PEIQOIS SOFIAS LOGOIS (persuasive words of wisdom),
which aptly describes the whole collection of wisdom sayings attributed to
Then there are several echoes of the logia: laying a foundation (1 Cor
3:10-13, c.f. saying A22 'Rock/sand'); being filled, becoming rich and
reigning (1 Cor 4:8, c.f. saying A1, Blessings); when reviled we bless (1
Cor 4:12, c.f. saying A8 about loving enemies); kingdom of God associated
with power (EN DUNAMEI, 1 Cor 4:20, c.f. saying C12, Mk 9:1). [For the first
three of these Paul/synoptic echoes I am indebted to the section "Paul and
Q" in Allison's "The Jesus Tradition in Q". Dale Allison surveys several
possible links, but in the end is not convinced.]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]