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

(Fwd) Re: Son of Man and Farrer hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Message forwarded from Steve Davies. Originally sent to Crosstalk. ... I don t understand. From what you have written I see not the slightest reason to think
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Message forwarded from Steve Davies. Originally sent to Crosstalk.

      > From: Jeff Peterson

      > A while back Stevan Davies challenged non-2ST adherents to identify a
      > substantive difference that the Farrer Hypothesis would make in the
      > understanding of early Christian history; Steve suggested that if Q + M is
      > identified as "non-Marcan Matthew" (NMM), then the picture remains the
      > same, only the labels change. With characteristic speed of response, I'd
      > like to propose one issue on which a significantly diffferent picture
      > emerges on FH (or _mutatis mutandis_ on GH) than on 2 ST, viz., the "Son of
      > Man" (hereafter SoM)

      > In the standard reconstructions, the SoM sayings are sorted into 3 piles:
      > present (e.g., "SoM has nowhere to lay his head"), suffering/rising (e.g.,
      > "SoM must suffer and after three days rise again"), and future (e.g., "you
      > shall see the SoM seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the
      > clouds"). The piles are then analyzed and ascribed to various early
      > Christian authorities. Since the suffering/rising sayings are Marcan, and
      > no such sayings appear in Q material, it's usually concluded that Q's SoM
      > Christology did not involve suffering and resurrection. (Then comes more
      > fun slicing Q up into layers and assigning present SoM sayings to one and
      > future SoM sayings to another, usually the latest, but that's not crucial
      > to the point being made here.)

      > If Q did not exist as a a discrete written source (or a very well-defined
      > body of oral tradition, of the sort that Gerhardsson imagines), then there
      > is no solid textual basis for assigning distinct histories of tradition to
      > the three groups of sayings. What one has instead is one text (Mark)
      > employing this striking and peculiar expression throughout its narrative.
      > If the various Marcan sayings cohere when read as part of that narrative,
      > then the Marcan interpretation itself constitutes the earliest form of the
      > SoM tradition that we can reach. The additional SoM sayings in the other
      > Synoptics would represent not the appropriation of a competing SoM
      > tradition but explication, adornment, and adaptation of the Marcan
      > tradition, whether these sayings were composed by the Evangelists
      > themselves (so Goulder and Drury) or derived from oral tradition (so
      > potentially Farrer and Goodacre).

      I don't understand. From what you have written I see not the
      slightest reason to think that NMM sayings, "the additional SoM
      sayings" have anything to do with, or were in any way influenced by,
      the Markan tradition... unless you are assuming that Mt is making
      them all up.

      The standard theory gives us three piles of sayings material from Mt.
      1. Mark material
      2. Special Matthew sayings material (some of which scholars conclude
      was invented by Mt, albeit not a lot)
      3. Q material

      Under the Goodacre/Farrer hypothesis we have
      1. Mark material
      2. Non-Markan Matthew sayings material (some of which scholars conclude
      was invented by Mt, albeit not a lot)

      If one adds the Sp Mt material to the Q material, by and large it is just
      slightly more of the same. The biggest problem I can
      envision is trying to figure out whether the "fence around the Torah"
      material in SM is Matthew's own invention or not (of course it is).
      Same, I think, for "why we should hate the Pharisees" material.

      So, anyhow, you have two piles. Mark stuff and NMM stuff.
      The NMM stuff is another source than Matthew (i.e. he didn't make
      it up). And it's pre-Matthean. I don't see why "tradition history"
      couldn't be done with that material. You couldn't do Kloppenborgian
      style analysis with it, but you could do the sort of analysis with it
      that is done with Q by those who aren't Kloppenborg. In other words,
      rather than look at literary seams and connections (impossible with
      NMM) look at ideological trends and tendencies. Not that I'm
      defending this as great procedure, just pointing out that this is
      what Q scholars often do with Q and could do with NMM.

      What might happen is the separation of materials into three piles.

      1. You have the Son of Man used in its normal hebraic sense as a
      general self-referential phrase (cf. various prophetic texts). This
      pile has been and would be based on linguistic grounds and not
      tradition-history grounds.

      2. You have the Son of Man used in its Markan sense
      It's just as carried-over into Mt with or without the Farrer scheme.

      3. You have the Son of Man used in pre-Matthean NMM sayings.
      And these will be all? Q sayings. Dunno of any Sp Mt here.

      So you end up with the same three piles as before, no?

      > I think this is one instance in which abandoning 2ST for FH would make a
      > real difference in the history of early Christian theology. I might add
      > that if some substantial form of the Marcan SoM tradition can be traced to
      > Jesus (as Farrer himself held on the basis of the Pauline evidence), then
      > that's where one might find the link between Jesus' ministry and later
      > evaluations of him that Steve was looking for last week.

      I shudder to think of what convulsions Farrer must have gone through
      to get this argument to seem to work.

      Steve [Forward to synoptic-l if you like. Bham server is down or I'd
      re-up]]

      [MSG note: as far as I am aware there is no problem with the Bham server].
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.