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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 Mark (Goodacre) has an unpublished paper on that and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 2 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 3 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 4 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.