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

[Synoptic-L] Eric Eve, The Devil in the Detail

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Eric Eve has a work in progress piece entitled The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q from the Beelzebub Controversy and he invites members of Synoptic-L to
    Message 1 of 5 , May 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric Eve has a work in progress piece entitled "The Devil in the
      Detail: Exorcising Q from the Beelzebub Controversy" and he invites
      members of Synoptic-L to read this pre-publication article and ideally
      to provide any comments or feedback ahead of his getting it published.
      It is in the files area of the Yahoo!Groups archive. To reach this
      go to:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/files/

      and click on Beelzebub.pdf. Or to go straight to the file, try this URL:

      http://tinyurl.com/co5eh

      Mark
      --
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology and Religion
      University of Birmingham
      Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
      Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      Dear Mark, Eric, and any other interested parties, I read this over the day it was posted and I liked it a lot. I ve been trying to read it through again more
      Message 2 of 5 , May 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mark, Eric, and any other interested parties,

        I read this over the day it was posted and I liked it a lot. I've been
        trying to read it through again more thoroughly while wearing my "2DH"
        spectacles, but they don't seem to be working. Hopefully someone else can
        help out there. I still like it a lot and have only a few comments:

        (1) I find "unpicking Matthew from Mark" on p. 1 is a little bit confusing.
        Downing is saying that if Luke used Matthew, he must have unpicked Mark (or
        the close Markan parallels) from his use of Matthew.

        (2) There are a few places where it might help to mention parallels that
        occur out of the immediate context of the Beelzebul pericope, just to show
        that they haven't been overlooked. I'm thinking of the Mk. 8.11-12 as a
        parallel or source for Mt.'s request for a sign, and Lk. 12.10's version of
        the unforgivable sin. (I apologize if these were mentioned and I missed it).

        (3) It seems to me that there's an additional argument to be made for LkR in
        the Strong Man saying in Lk. 11.22-23. The emphasis on the Strong Man's
        trust in his possessions followed by his loss of all of them seems very
        Lukan. The Parable of the Rich Fool (Lk. 12.16-21) is probably the best
        parallel.

        (4) I liked the point about Lk. 11.27-28 being a substitution for Mt.
        12.46-50//Mk. 3.31-35. It's always seemed to me that we have the closing
        part of a Markan intercalation there and it must be based on Mark, either
        directly pr indirectly. Mark (Goodacre) has an unpublished paper on that and
        hopefully can add some insight.

        I also have a few bibliographical suggestions:

        Boring, M. E., "The Synoptic Problem, 'Minor' Agreements, and the Beelzebul
        Pericope", in _The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck_ edited by
        F. Van Segbroek, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden (Leuven:
        University Press, 1992) 587-619.

        I think Boring's paper is pretty poor. He claims he's going to compare how
        four of the major source hypotheses (Griebach, Farrer, 2DH, Deutero-Mark)
        explain the pericope. Then, in his treatment of Goulder, he argues that, *if
        we allow the existence of Q*, Goulder's conclusions about the "Matthean"
        language of Matthew's additions don't necessarily follow, and then concludes
        that the 2DH is the best explanation. He doesn't really attempt to
        investigate whether the Farrer Hypothesis works on the on its own
        assumptions rather than those of the 2DH. But in any event, Boring's is a
        fairly recent treatment of the issue and should maybe get a mention. It
        might also give some insight into the sort of objections that might brought
        by 2Dhers.

        There's also a lot of literature on the Spirit of God/Finger of God issue
        that might help. I don't mean to advocate argument by appeal to numerous
        authorities, but since many defenders of the 2DH (Stein, Tuckett, and
        Kloppenborg) consider this one of the knockdown examples of Lukan priority,
        it might be worth mentioning just how disputed that opinion is within the
        2DH camp (D. Catchpole, Quest for Q, 12 n. 27) , and particularly among
        Lukan commentators (besides C. F. Evans, there's L. T. Johnson, and, more
        vocally, J. Nolland and the literature he cites).

        In sum, I will repeat that I liked the paper a lot and I wish I could be of
        more help in anticipating the kind of criticisms that Q advocates will bring
        against it.

        Best,

        Ken

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Joseph Weaks
        ... Ken, First off, when you are saying 2DH ( two document hypothesis ), are you really meaning 2SH ( two source hypothesis , ie. Matthew and Luke each used
        Message 3 of 5 , May 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On May 21, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Ken Olson wrote:
          > I also have a few bibliographical suggestions:
          >
          > Boring, M. E., "The Synoptic Problem, 'Minor' Agreements, and the
          > Beelzebul
          > Pericope", in _The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck_
          > edited by
          > F. Van Segbroek, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden (Leuven:
          > University Press, 1992) 587-619.
          >
          > I think Boring's paper is pretty poor. He claims he's going to compare
          > how
          > four of the major source hypotheses (Griebach, Farrer, 2DH,
          > Deutero-Mark)
          > explain the pericope. Then, in his treatment of Goulder, he argues
          > that, *if
          > we allow the existence of Q*, Goulder's conclusions about the
          > "Matthean"
          > language of Matthew's additions don't necessarily follow, and then
          > concludes
          > that the 2DH is the best explanation. He doesn't really attempt to
          > investigate whether the Farrer Hypothesis works on the on its own
          > assumptions rather than those of the 2DH. But in any event, Boring's
          > is a
          > fairly recent treatment of the issue and should maybe get a mention. It
          > might also give some insight into the sort of objections that might
          > brought
          > by 2Dhers.

          Ken,
          First off, when you are saying 2DH ("two document hypothesis"), are you
          really meaning 2SH ("two source hypothesis", ie. Matthew and Luke each
          used Mark independently)? If not, I don't understand you at all.

          I think you're right that if Eric's paper lacks a reference to Boring's
          treatment, it is an oversight. However, I find American scholars'
          engagement with the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis to be consistently
          lacking up through that time period. It has only been in the last
          decade that the newest work and (most of all) clarity regarding the
          Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis has obtained influence across the
          pond.

          Interested party,
          Joe Weaks

          **************************************************************
          Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
          Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
          j.weaks@...

          The Macintosh Biblioblog http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
          "All things Macintosh for the Bible Scholar"
          **************************************************************


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ken Olson
          ... Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve s paper (2DH) throughout, rather than introducing that in Boring s (2SH). Are you drawing a distinction
          Message 4 of 5 , May 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Joseph Weaks wrote:

            > Ken,
            > First off, when you are saying 2DH ("two document hypothesis"), are you
            > really meaning 2SH ("two source hypothesis", ie. Matthew and Luke each
            > used Mark independently)? If not, I don't understand you at all.

            Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve's paper (2DH) throughout,
            rather than introducing that in Boring's (2SH). Are you drawing a
            distinction between the 2DH and 2SH?

            > I think you're right that if Eric's paper lacks a reference to Boring's
            > treatment, it is an oversight. However, I find American scholars'
            > engagement with the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis to be consistently lacking
            > up through that time period. It has only been in the last decade that the
            > newest work and (most of all) clarity regarding the
            > Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis has obtained influence across the pond.

            I think it's still fairly rare to see serious engagement with the Farrer
            theory by advocates of the 2DH (or 2SH, 2ST, or ZQT) who are willing to look
            at it on its own terms without introducing 2DH presupppositions into the
            analysis. Kloppenborg and Derrenbacker (I should probably have added the
            latter's dissertation, soon to be published in the BETL series, to my
            bibliographical suggestions), in Canada are better than most, as are
            Neirynck and some of his students from Leuven, and Tuckett in the UK.

            Best,

            Ken

            Kenneth A. Olson
            MA, History, University of Maryland
            PhD Student, Theology, University of Birmingham

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Joseph Weaks
            ... Well, my problem is when I hear Two Document Hypothesis , I can t help but be thinking Two Gospel Hypothesis . I ve always thought 2DH is a poor
            Message 5 of 5 , May 21, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 22, 2005, at 1:07 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
              > On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Joseph Weaks wrote:
              >> Ken,
              >> First off, when you are saying 2DH ("two document hypothesis"), are
              >> you really meaning 2SH ("two source hypothesis", ie. Matthew and Luke
              >> each used Mark independently)? If not, I don't understand you at all.
              >
              > Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve's paper (2DH)
              > throughout,
              > rather than introducing that in Boring's (2SH). Are you drawing a
              > distinction between the 2DH and 2SH?

              Well, my problem is when I hear "Two Document Hypothesis", I can't help
              but be thinking "Two Gospel Hypothesis". I've always thought "2DH" is
              a poor synonym for "2SH". For one, 2SH advocates need not argue that Q
              was a document (though most do).
              Is this yet another difference between scholars on each side of the
              pond?

              Joe

              **************************************************************
              Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
              Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
              j.weaks@...

              The Macintosh Biblioblog http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
              "All things Macintosh for the Bible Scholar"
              **************************************************************


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.