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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.