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

[Synoptic-L] Unpicking - an observation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , May 24 6:13 AM
      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 2 of 7 , May 24 3:26 PM
        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 3 of 7 , May 24 7:10 PM
          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 4 of 7 , May 27 2:17 PM
            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 5 of 7 , May 29 3:33 AM
              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.