6650[Synoptic-L] are all parallelism phenomena bound to support the 2DH?
- Sep 4, 2001Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote --
>I agree that the problem with many of the hypotheses offered to
>"solve" the synoptic problem is that they are limited to what is
>consistent with the evidence rather than what is most probable given
I think the basic difficulty is to find a hypothesis that is
consistent with all the evidence. If we enjoyed the luxury of several
hypotheses that worked completely, then perhaps we might consider which
of these is the most probable. But the first step is to find just one
synoptic documentary hypothesis that works.
>I would suggest that it is wishful thinking to suppose that careful
>Furthermore, they are often based on assumptions about what an author
>might have done rather than careful analyses of what an author has
analyses of what a synoptist has done to produce his gospel can be
carried out without first solving the synoptic problem. Simply by
examining a synoptic gospel in isolation, there is no way of
distinguishing between wording the synoptist obtained from sources
(tradition), and wording that he supplied (redaction). Simply by
examining a synoptic gospel, there is therefore no way of determining
what the synoptist has done to produce his gospel.
Of course, if we posit a documentary relationship between the synoptic
gospels, then, on this basis, we can immediately see some wording that
is tradition and other wording that is redaction. For example, if we
posit the Two Document Hypothesis in which Mt is dependent on Mk and
hypothetical "Q", then the markan parallels in Mt are derived from the
gospel of Mark. We can therefore see what Matthew has done to material
he used from Mark. On the other hand, if we posit a hypothesis in which
Mk is dependent on Mt, then the matthaean parallels in Mk are derived
from Mt. On this basis we can see what Mark has done to material he used
from Matthew. But if we do not posit a documentary hypothesis of which
(if any) is dependent on the other, Matthew or Mark, then where do we
begin to discover what either Matthew or Mark did to produce his gospel?
For without a synoptic documentary hypothesis, we do not know one single
word that either Matthew or Mark supplied in his gospel or one single
word he obtained from any source. We therefore cannot even begin to
carry out analyses of what any synoptist has done.
I think that it is therefore wishful thinking to imagine that we can
engage in careful analyses of what a synoptist has done to produce his
gospel without stating the documentary relationship between the synoptic
gospels we are positing. In other words, we first have to solve the
synoptic problem. The careful analyses come after, and are not part of,
solving the synoptic problem. The reconstruction of "Q" can be effected
only by first assuming that the Two Document Hypothesis is true, and, on
this basis, using redaction criticism to tease out the wording of "Q"
(as is done in Robinson, Hoffmann and Kloppenborg's "A Critical Edition
of Q".) And so on with other synoptic documentary hypotheses.
To solve the synoptic problem, I would suggest the way to proceed is to
posit any synoptic documentary hypothesis at all, and test it against
the observed synoptic data. If it does not account easily for all the
data, then posit another hypothesis, and test this. And so on. Until a
hypothesis that works is found. Only then, by assuming this hypothesis
to be true, does it make any sense to use careful redaction critical
analyses to discover what a synoptist has done to produce his gospel.
>HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>