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

[Synoptic-L] nomenclature of synoptic theories (was: Eric Eve, The Devil in the Detail)

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... Both terms seem to be transatlantic in usage, as I ve had good opportunity to observe. Christopher Tuckett, formerly of Manchester, now at Oxford, uses
    Message 1 of 7 , May 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sunday, May 22, Joseph Weaks wrote:

      > 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?

      Both terms seem to be transatlantic in usage, as I've had good opportunity
      to observe. Christopher Tuckett, formerly of Manchester, now at Oxford,
      uses 2ST in _Q and the History of Early Christianity_ (1996). John S.
      Kloppenborg-Verbin of Toronto uses 2DH in _Excavating Q_ (2000). Delbert
      Burkett of Louisianna State, also uses 2DH in his recent _Rethinking the
      Gospel Sources_. I think it likely that the current vogue of the term 2DH
      is largely due to JSKV's influence as currently the foremost Q scholar, and
      that a large part of his reason for preferring it is to assert that Q was
      indeed a written document, not a combination of written and/or oral
      traditions. The label leaves open the question of how we should construe M
      and L material. Goulder has objected to the term Two-Gospel Hypothesis, as
      opposed to Griesbach Hypothesis, both because of potential confusion with
      the Two-Document Hypothesis and because the Farrer theory and the
      Augustinian hypothesis would equally well qualify as Two-Gospel Hypotheses.

      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@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      Ken Olson has essentially nailed the nomenclatural issue with respect to 2SH and 2DH. For me, they are virtually synonymous, with the 2DH of having a slight
      Message 2 of 7 , May 23, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken Olson has essentially nailed the nomenclatural
        issue with respect to 2SH and 2DH. For me, they
        are virtually synonymous, with the 2DH of having
        a slight connotation of stressing the documentary
        nature of Q.

        Personally, I prefer to call it the "Mark-Q theory."

        As for the "Two Gospel Hypothesis," I think it is
        now more confusing than illuminative. In the 1970s
        when B. Orchard coined it, it was more illuminative
        than confusing, but times have changed.

        Stephen

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson,
        mailto:scarlson@...
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        I ve just read Ken Olson s interesting essay: Unpicking on the Farrer Theory in _Questioning Q_, Eds. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Parrin (SPCK 2004). It
        Message 3 of 7 , May 24, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I've just read Ken Olson's interesting essay: "Unpicking on the Farrer
          Theory" in _Questioning Q_, Eds. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Parrin (SPCK
          2004). It tackles some alleged problems with the Farrer Theory regarding
          Luke's editorial task, and then counters with an allegation of a problem
          with the Two-Document Hypothesis regarding Matthew's editorial task.

          As an aside, the terminology is muddled. Why is Farrer's solution called a
          "theory" while the dominant solution is called a "hypothesis"?
          And at a broader level, it would surely have been better if the
          contributors had been told to come up with consistent names for the primary
          theories/hypotheses which they were writing about. It's not as if they
          represent different sides of the argument!
          Two-Document Hypothesis - p. 127 etc.
          Two-Source Hypothesis - p.165 etc.
          Two-Source Theory - p.174 etc.

          That said, I'm not launching into a review, but wanting to make an
          observation on two of Ken's summary statements.

          On p.146, the 'Sending' (Lk 10:1-16) is portrayed as the odd one out among 4
          test cases because Luke here appears to have ignored Mt 9:36, i.e. all of
          the material designated by Downing as 'class A' (where Matthew's text is
          very like Mark's).

          On p.147, the Beelzebul pericope is shown to be a difficulty for the
          Two-Document Hypothesis because of the awkwardness involved in the
          hypothesized conflation of Mark and Q.

          These two cases picked out by Ken as exceptions are on opposite sides of the
          argument about a synoptic author's apparent editorial problems. The former
          is arguably a problem for the Farrer Theory, while the latter seems to be
          acknowledged as a problem for the Two-Document Hypothesis. Surely the
          neatest solution is a 3ST such as I've been advocating where Lk 10:1-12 had
          no dependence on Matthew, whereas the Lucan Beelzebul pericope *was* derived
          from Matthew.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Tim Reynolds
          ... So Markan priority, Mark-Q and Griesbach would cover the ground? tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner:
          Message 4 of 7 , May 24, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            on 5/23/05 8:02 AM, Stephen C. Carlson at scarlson@... wrote:

            > Ken Olson has essentially nailed the nomenclatural
            > issue with respect to 2SH and 2DH. For me, they
            > are virtually synonymous, with the 2DH of having
            > a slight connotation of stressing the documentary
            > nature of Q.
            >
            > Personally, I prefer to call it the "Mark-Q theory."
            >
            > As for the "Two Gospel Hypothesis," I think it is
            > now more confusing than illuminative. In the 1970s
            > when B. Orchard coined it, it was more illuminative
            > than confusing, but times have changed.
            >
            > Stephen
            >
            > --
            > Stephen C. Carlson,
            > mailto:scarlson@...
            > "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            >
            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


            So Markan priority, Mark-Q and Griesbach would cover the ground?

            tim


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Joseph Weaks
            ... Well, not exclusively. Mark-Q is also Markan priority. Association with names is easiest for Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre and for Griesbach, since it is
            Message 5 of 7 , May 24, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 24, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Tim Reynolds wrote:
              > So Markan priority, Mark-Q and Griesbach would cover the ground?

              Well, not exclusively. Mark-Q is also Markan priority. Association
              with names is easiest for Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre and for Griesbach,
              since it is associated with certain assumptions and conclusions. But
              for just a wider reference, it is limiting.
              "Mark-Q" is nice, as is "Mark without Q". As for Griesbach, does it
              really even need a designation anymore? Folks still talk about it? ;)

              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@...
            • Ken Olson
              ... observation on two of Ken s summary statements. On p.146, the Sending (Lk 10:1-16) is portrayed as the odd one out among 4 test cases because Luke here
              Message 6 of 7 , May 27, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On April 24, Ron Price wote:

                >>That said, I'm not launching into a review, but wanting to make an
                observation on two of Ken's summary statements.

                On p.146, the 'Sending' (Lk 10:1-16) is portrayed as the odd one out among 4
                test cases because Luke here appears to have ignored Mt 9:36, i.e. all of
                the material designated by Downing as 'class A' (where Matthew's text is
                very like Mark's).

                On p.147, the Beelzebul pericope is shown to be a difficulty for the
                Two-Document Hypothesis because of the awkwardness involved in the
                hypothesized conflation of Mark and Q.

                These two cases picked out by Ken as exceptions are on opposite sides of the
                argument about a synoptic author's apparent editorial problems. The former
                is arguably a problem for the Farrer Theory, while the latter seems to be
                acknowledged as a problem for the Two-Document Hypothesis.<<

                Ron,

                To show that the Sending is a problem for the Farrer theory, you would have
                to show not just that it is unique in some way (because all pericopes are
                unique in some way), but that it is unlikely that the way in which it is
                unique could have occurred as a result of the composition of Luke's gospel
                as postulated on the Farrer theory. You haven't done that. If you want to
                argue that the Sending is a problem for the Farrer theory, you're going to
                have to articulate why.

                Downing was trying to show that, on the Farrer theory, there was a pattern
                to Luke's avoidance of Matthew's use of Mark, but you need more than one
                example to show a pattern. There's nothing improbable about Luke failing to
                follow a specific verse in his use of Matthew, even if that verse happens to
                be the only verse in its pericope in which Matthew followed Mark closely.
                The fact that he fails to follow Mt. 9.36 is a coincidental effect of his
                heavily recasting the entire introduction to the pericope. He doesn't follow
                Mt. 9.35, which is not closely paralleled in Mark, either.

                >>Surely the neatest solution is a 3ST such as I've been advocating where Lk
                >>10:1-12 had
                no dependence on Matthew, whereas the Lucan Beelzebul pericope *was* derived
                from Matthew.<<


                In what way is the 3ST the 'neatest' solution? What is neatness and how is
                it measured? If you're taking a sort of conservation-of-matter-and-energy
                approach to the Synoptic Problem in which the authors are robots who always
                treat their material according to a supposed set of inflexible rules (such
                as those examined by E. P. Sanders in The Tendencies of the Synoptic
                Tradition) and never create or omit anything, then surely a multiple
                sources/multiple-levels of redaction theory a la Boismard would be the
                'neatest' solution. But I don't think authors ever behaved in the way
                Boismard hypothesizes. (Parenthetically, I don't actually think we can
                arrive at such mechanical use of sources no matter how we multiply them). He
                sees the synoptic problem as pretty much a text-critical problem, with a
                number of scribes or redactors slightly altering the documents they copied.
                If we see the authors of the gospels as, well, authors, and in paticular as
                authors who were intentionally creating works of literature, I don't see how
                the 3ST is any 'neater' than Farrer.

                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@...
              • Ron Price
                ... Ken, It was you who declared it unique by labelling it as an exception , which I take to mean that this was the only one of Downing s four cases in which
                Message 7 of 7 , May 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ken Olson wrote:

                  > To show that the Sending is a problem for the Farrer theory, you would have
                  > to show not just that it is unique in some way (because all pericopes are
                  > unique in some way), but that it is unlikely that the way in which it is
                  > unique could have occurred as a result of the composition of Luke's gospel
                  > as postulated on the Farrer theory. You haven't done that.

                  Ken,

                  It was you who declared it unique by labelling it as an "exception", which I
                  take to mean that this was the only one of Downing's four cases in which
                  *all* of the wholly Markan material had been omitted, and was thus his best
                  case.

                  > In what way is the 3ST the 'neatest' solution?

                  Perhaps "most economical" would have conveyed my meaning better, for the 3ST
                  would overcome the problem in both Downing's best case (assuming it to be
                  valid), and also in your following (and to my mind convincing) argument that
                  on the 2ST, Matthew's conflation of Mark and Q in the Beelzebul pericope
                  would have involved an unprecedented and awkward task.

                  > Downing was trying to show that, on the Farrer theory, there was a pattern
                  > to Luke's avoidance of Matthew's use of Mark, but you need more than one
                  > example to show a pattern.

                  Point taken. Downing's case as it stands does not appear to be strong
                  enough.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                  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.